Leadless Pacemaker Implantation in Hemodialysis Patients: Experience With the Micra Transcatheter Pacemaker

JACC Clin Electrophysiol. 2019 Feb;5(2):162-170. doi: 10.1016/j.jacep.2018.12.008. Epub 2019 Jan 30.

Abstract

Objectives: This study sought to report periprocedural outcomes and intermediate-term follow-up of hemodialysis patients undergoing Micra implantation.

Background: Leadless pacemakers may be preferred in patients with limited vascular access and high-infection risk, such as patients on hemodialysis.

Methods: Patients on hemodialysis at the time of Micra implantation attempt (n = 201 of 2,819; 7%) from the Micra Transcatheter Pacing Study investigational device exemption trial, Micra Transcatheter Pacing System Continued Access Study Protocol, and Micra Transcatheter Pacing System Post-Approval Registry were included in the analysis. Baseline characteristics, periprocedural outcomes, and intermediate-term follow-up were summarized.

Results: Patients on hemodialysis at the time of Micra implantation attempt were on average 70.5 ± 13.5 years of age and 59.2% were male. The dialysis patients commonly had hypertension (80%), diabetes (61%), coronary artery disease (39%), and congestive heart failure (27%), and 72% had a condition that the implanting physician felt precluded the use of a transvenous pacemaker. Micra was successfully implanted in 197 patients (98.0%). Reasons for unsuccessful implantation included inadequate thresholds (n = 2) and pericardial effusion (n = 2). The median implantation time was 27 min (interquartile range: 20 to 39 min). There were 3 procedure-related deaths: 1 due to metabolic acidosis following a prolonged procedure duration in a patient undergoing concomitant atrioventricular nodal ablation and 2 deaths occurred in patients who needed surgical repair after perforation. Average follow-up was 6.2 months (range 0 to 26.7 months). No patients had a device-related infection or required device removal because of bacteremia.

Conclusions: Leadless pacemakers represent an effective pacing option in this challenging patient population on chronic hemodialysis. The risk of infection appears low with an acceptable safety profile. (Micra Transcatheter Pacing Study; NCT02004873; Micra Transcatheter Pacing System Continued Access Study Protocol; NCT02488681; Micra Transcatheter Pacing System Post-Approval Registry; NCT02536118).

Keywords: bradycardia; hemodialysis; leadless pacemaker; permanent pacemaker.

Publication types

  • Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

MeSH terms

  • Aged
  • Aged, 80 and over
  • Arrhythmias, Cardiac* / complications
  • Arrhythmias, Cardiac* / mortality
  • Arrhythmias, Cardiac* / therapy
  • Female
  • Humans
  • Kidney Failure, Chronic / complications
  • Kidney Failure, Chronic / mortality
  • Kidney Failure, Chronic / therapy
  • Male
  • Middle Aged
  • Pacemaker, Artificial* / adverse effects
  • Pacemaker, Artificial* / statistics & numerical data
  • Postoperative Complications / epidemiology
  • Prospective Studies
  • Prosthesis Implantation / adverse effects
  • Prosthesis Implantation / instrumentation
  • Prosthesis Implantation / mortality
  • Prosthesis Implantation / statistics & numerical data
  • Renal Dialysis*
  • Treatment Outcome